Zero Mass wrote Your opinion is noted and respected. My only question to you, Zero Mass, is to clarify the statement above, i.e., “although the theory is not fact, evolution is a fact.” If evolution is a fact wouldn’t that make the theory a law (like the Law of Gravity, the Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Electromagnetism, etc.)? But if the theory is not a fact, how is evolution a fact outside of its own theory? I hope you can understand the confession from that statement. Please explain (And take your time if necessary). DefSkeptic wrote Thank you for your response, DefSkeptic, and I hope you don’t mind if I continue to ask some more questions. As you have stated the genetic theory of natural selection is a theory that which depends on the mutations of genes. Mutations, the random error in the copying process, have been acknowledged to be more harmful than helpful, resulting in diseases and death, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. It states, “If the sequence [meaning the DNA code] is changed, at random, the ‘meaning’ rarely will be improved and often will be hampered and destroyed.”(‘Evolution’, Encyclopedia Britannica Online). A university biology textbook has stated the odds for a mutation to improve the genetic code are so low that “a random change is not likely to improve the genome any more than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance.” (‘Biology’, 4th Edition, Neil A. Campbell, University of California) My question - has there ever been an experiment, or observation, showing an improvement in the genetic code by adding new information in order to build a new physical feature due to a mutation? Cris wrote Thank you for your response, Cris, but I am having a little problem understanding your statement. I hope you can clarify it. How is the message “THESE BLOCKS WERE NOT PUT HERE ON PURPOSE” in a kindergarten classroom floor an example of evolution? Please explain. Cris wrote Wouldn’t this also be an example of intelligent design? The evolutionary process of today’s computers is not independent of the guiding hand from an intelligent source, i.e., man, to perform today’s functions. The code written into every microprocessor would not understand the random bits and bytes sent to it unless it came in a precise sequence that it understood as a command in order to respond to. If it recognizes the command, then it performs a precise function to complete the command. Without the code written into the microprocessor, the computer can do nothing. It is the code written in the DNA that indicates an intelligent source. http://www.leaderu.com/science/thaxton_dna.html MacM wrote It is the interpretation of the scientific findings that is in question and differentiates between the conclusions derived from evolutionists and creationists. Somewhere in between them is the answer, in my opinion. Wouldn’t it be logical to remain open-minded and question all things, even evolution? Consequent Atheist wrote Thank you, too, for your response, Consequent Atheist. However a better article explaining the RNA World experiments would have been http://205.180.85.40/w/pc.cgi?mid=19126&sid=10700 But even the conclusion of the article to find the answer of the beginning of life through an RNA World is full of problems, although he ends it with a statement of ‘faith’ that future chemists and biologists may find the answer. “Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity… Roughly speaking the information content of a structure is the minimum number needed to specify the structure.” (‘The origin of Life’, Leslie Orgel, p. 189-190, 1973) The more complex the structure is, the more instructions needed to specify it. The instructions get their information transferred from a design code, which is complex, specific, and precise. That implies intelligent design from an intelligent source.
SVRP Reply SVRP, ANS: I maintain an open mind as to the more precise manner and method of evolution achieving what has been acheived. However, to question evolution in favor of Creationism or the hand of God if you will; you must first supply me with specific answers to the following questions: 1 - Assuming your God view, did not God have to create "Something" out of "Nothing"? For if someting existed before that then God was not the creator. 2 - Just where was Gods workshop before he created time-space? 3 - How did God create himself from "Nothing"? 4 - Is it not more logical to assume that 0------>(+n)+(-n) can define all creation. That is that (mathematically at least) "Nothingness" can be bifurcated into two opposite "Somethings" and still maintain conservation? 5 - Or do you suggest God didn't go by the rules of physics impossed on his creation and created himself, then time-space and then filled it with energy and matter all from "Nothing" which is not conserved? 6 - Oh wait, that doesn't work. God must first create time space before he creates himself. But just how is that accomplished? That is create something before you exist?
Sorry, I know I am going off on a tangent here, but: Even if it WERE true that the Encyclopedia Britanica could be stored in a single human cell (which I am not convinced of, I would like to know how he came to that conclusion)... Hell, even if it could store it 100 times over, how would that be billions of times more comples than the most powerful computer to date? Even my cheapest laptop (more than 5 years old) can do that, plus electronically manipulate the data, display it on the screen for me to see and SO much more. As for the link: You are right. That article was very interesting. But it said absolutely nothing at all about the complexity of the DNA molecule. If anything, it speaks of man's intelligence and ability to use and manipulate science and nature to suit his own needs. Evolution of technology, in a sense. --- I am not saying that DNA is not wonderful and amazing. I am saying that such a ridiculous statement as:"billions of times more complex than the most powerful computer to date". Is not only misleading, it is a manipulative lie that gets in the way of people understanding the truth. Just the same as when people purposely manipulate information about Evolution to turn people away from it. Although, I am fairly sure it has been said on this thread already... Evolution is not Darwinism. Darwin could have been completely wrong with how he thought evolution occurs (which is highly doubtful). Even if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Darwin was a crack-pot and completely off base, that does not change the fact that evolution occurs. The question of EXACTLY how it occurs would still be up in the air. I don't believe that Darwin was 100% correct. Many people do not believe he was completely correct. Regardless of the fate of Darwin's theories, Evolution is under no threat of extinction. Unless, of course, we allow lies to run rampant.
MacM wrote Interesting questions to think about, MacM, especially for a round-table discussion among people who like to discuss theories, both mathematically and philosophically. But a question popped in my mind while reading them, and I asked myself, ‘how do these questions relate to the observed physical evidence on how life began?’ Regardless, your questions are important to you. Quoting Stephen Hawking, “… a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality.” (‘The Nature of Space and Time’, Stephen Hawking, Princeton University Press, 1996). According to Hawking, the notion that the universe has neither beginning nor end is something that exists in mathematical terms only using imaginary numbers and does not correspond to reality. He wrote, “Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no (beginning)… When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however,… the universe has a beginning.” Plus he wrote, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” (‘A Brief History of Time’, Stephen Hawking, Bantam Books, 1996). Physicists agree that time, space, and matter originated together at some finite point in the past, about 15 to 20 billion years ago. Now the question is how did God exist before the universe began when there was no time, space, or matter? Even Hawking acknowledges the universe “… would be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all.” So where was God before this happened? These questions brought to my mind a short story (from an author I can’t remember) about the two-dimensional man living in his two-dimensional house on his two-dimensional world, floating through three-dimensional space. But to him all he can see is his two-dimensional world. A three-dimensional sphere decides to intersect his world, intending to pass through. The 2D man notices a point that expands into a circle, then reduces itself down to a point again. He calls out and asks, what are you? The 3D sphere stops, returns, and tries to explain. The sphere tells the 2D man about his length, width, and depth from his 3D point of view. The 2D man can understand x-coordinates (length) and y-coordinates (width), but not z-coordinates (depth). From his 2D point of view he cannot understand how such a thing exists. I wondered, ‘Did the author write this short story to illustrate man’s point of view in regards of trying to explain the unexplainable, i.e., God? Does God live in a dimension that does not depend on time, space, and matter? Is He capable of intersecting our dimension, our world, at will? How can anyone imagine such a dimension if the mind’s reference point is time, space, and matter? Can such a dimension exist?’ I don’t expect anyone to answer these questions I have asked, but only for you to think about them (maybe even follow up with more questions). In my opinion, for the finite mind to understand an infinite being is like trying to understand the power of the ocean from looking at a bucket of water. MacM, I don’t consider myself an authority to answer your questions satisfactorily because I am also looking for answers as well. And I, too, plan to have an open mind without presuppositions. one raven wrote Microbiologists and genetic scientists will disagree, but you can do the research yourself. In your research you will find that one single human DNA strand collectively contains 3.2 billion base pairs, like the rungs of a ladder (the double helix), in its structure. With 46 such structures (called chromosomes) in a human cell, there are 147.2 billion base pairs of information in a single cell, all compacted into an amazingly tiny space. DNA does an incredible number of things in tiny fractions of a second, managing information beyond human comprehension. In each human cell, it gives instructions regarding how each part of the cell should work, including such functions as 1) generating power, 2) manufacturing a great quantity and variety of proteins, 3) designating the function and relationship of these proteins, 4) guiding final destination of key molecules, 5) packaging certain molecules in membrane-bound sacs, 6) managing transfer of information, 7) assuring a high level of quality, 8) disposal of waste, 9) growth, 10) reproduction. The “manufacturing floor” of the human cell is more complex, more precise, and better managed than the world’s best manufacturing company. But if you believe the statement is misleading then you can do the research and find out the truth. There is nothing manipulative about it if you find the facts yourself. one raven wrote I wholeheartedly agree. Stephen Jay Gould admits the controversy is not from the facts alone because everyone has the same facts. Rather it is the way we interpret the facts because we start with different biases and presuppositions. (‘Dorothy, It’s Really Oz,’ Stephen Jay Gould, Time Magazine, Vol.154, No. 8, August 23, 1999). So when creationists and evolutionists argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions. In 1981 Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist from the British Museum of Natural History, had these remarks: Allow the evidence to speak for itself, without presuppositions. Be skeptical and question all things.
Good SVRP, You have posted a good string. Considering the questions being asked, one thing that tips the scales a bit for me is the view advanced by the Bible that man is created in Gods image. That would appear to be a ludricrus and ethnocentric view point in light of this dimensional question. It tends to put science above any religious explanation. Secondly I have my own view of the origin of existance. It can be read going to my Home Page: Click on "Summaries" and then "Origin of Existence". In short it is a purely mathematical concept of how the universe may have come into existance without Gods, Miracles or Magic. 0----------->(+n)+(-n) Bifurcating zero into +/- components creates two "Somethings" out of "Nothingness" and conservation is maintained. That is to say mathematically at least if one views existance to be bifurcated into a system of parallel universes (no requirement that they be mirrow images only the conservation must be maintained) then although we do not yet know how it occurs at least we can understand that it can and therefore most likely is how it occured. These two universes but be seperated by the vacuum (Chiral Condensate). The Big Bang then becomes nothing more than a rip in the condition of "Nothingness" and the ongoing accelerated expansion of theUniverse is a symptom of the ongoing unzipping or bifurcation with continuing creation of space-time. If space were merely stretching then our rulers would stretch in like amounts and we would see no expansion. Hence it is on going creation from the point of enception. I have seen calculations that the energy density in the Chiral Condensate is as high as 2E128 ergs/cm^3. This energy is what is there at absolute 0 from our perspective. That is enough energy to almost have every cm^3 of space create another whole Universe. Really fascinating stuff. Here we have everything we need to create new universes that we can reachout and thouch but not feel all around us, no understanding of how that can be. I am Deist and therefore look to non-spiritual answers since spiritual answers fail to take into account what we do already know. But until we think we know everything no man can have proof of no God. But at least the scales seem over whelmingly in favor of no God.
A great book! I read this while waiting to see a math professor in Uni, its quite short: Flat Land If I remember correct, "A. Square" (the protagonist) ends up believing in god? It has been a while and I can’t quite remember the story.
Incompetent Design I found an interesting link on the subject: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/index.html I thought following passage was quite funny: 1. God creates Lucifer. Lucifer rebels. 2. God creates Adam and Eve. They rebel. 3. God commits genocide by flood to eradicate sin. Sin persists. 4. God fakes his own death to make us feel guilty. Most of us remain disobedient. 5. Ultimately, God will destroy the world (again) and all souls will be judged. Will THIS finally solve the problem?
On the topic of intelligent design Take for example a computer's operating system and its hard drive. You could associate this to the human mind and the physical brain. The operating system needs to be on the hard drive, hooked up to a working computer, to use all the functions of the operating system. No matter how much you zoom in and look at the hard drive, you will never see what the operating system is capable of. Zooming in on the brain will never get you a glimpse of where concsiousness hides. Can the operating system exist outside of the hard drive? Yes but, it is completly worthless sitting there on its installation cd. Zooming in on this disk will still not give you a look at all the awesome things it can do. It needs to be in a vessel that can use all of its features. Can the mind exist outside the physical brain? probably, but much like the installation disk, what use is a dormant consiousness? plus there is no way to get a consiousness out of a brain, there are no cd burners that hook up to our heads. the intelligent choices our parents made in selecting a partner designed us. same as their parents did and so on. if A.I. takes over the world say a million years from now, would they be trying to zoom in on their hard drives to see there operating systems. or wonder of a way of taking the Artifial intelligence they have off their drives? Would they wonder if they were made by a higher power that used intelligent design? (Or would some say, like the Linux OS, as it goes along people now and in the future selectively make the program better and better and find a way to make the program test and do for itself to find a way through out time to become better and better and evolve into a highly complex stable OS.) would they be trying to know everything there is to know about there original operating system God creator? Could their minds understand what it is to be the all omnipotent Bill Gates?
MacM wrote Thank you again for your response and a very interesting theory, MacM. But questions regarding this theory would be, what was the cause of the bifurcation in the first place? In respect to Stephen Hawking’s assumption, if the universe had nothing, what caused it to bifurcate into something? What was the force that started it? And how does it relate to the beginning of life on earth? MacM wrote Scientists have only two choices for the explanation of how life began on earth, random choice or intelligent design. As microbiologists discover the complexity of a single living cell, and what it takes to form the first cell, they have found that the likelihood it occurred by random choice is highly improbable. More and more scientists are accepting intelligent design as the answer when they realize what it takes to form the first living cell. If the scales seem overwhelmingly in favor of anything it is in favor of intelligent design.
Firstly, this statement is completely false and if anything misleading. There are many different theories of how life began on earth (silt theory being one of them and evolution not being one of them). Similarly, neither random choice nor intelligent design are one of them. Random choice doesn’t even make sense, I only hear of it when someone pro-intelligent design brings it up. There are no credible scientist that believe a cell just spontaneously self assembled. Nor a protein for that matter. The chances of that are so improbable that it isn't an option. There is no evidence of intelligent design – it’s not even considered. Theologically intelligent design is considered true. This is called faith not science. Theologically the whole world was flooded, all animals put on a small boat and the Earth is under 10000 yr/old. Theologically you may come back as a bug. See the difference? Science and Theology are separate. Let us keep them that way. Oh yeah, David Foster's book The Philosophical Scientists is entirely based on the concept that hemoglobin and the T4 bacteriophage have formed spontaneously. First off neither these represents anything near the first living organism so that was good of foster to begin misleading his readers right from the beginning. (Let me fan away the smoke – Ah there we go). Unfortunately for Foster neither are believed by any genuine scientist to have spontaneously arisen and thus the crux of Foster entire book just blew away as well. True. As I said though no one credible believes that’s the case. This is either just plain crazy or serious wishful thinking. I have never ever been to a scientific meeting where intelligent design has ever been offered as an explanation for anything. As a PhD in Medical Science I've been to a few - some with 30+ thousand scientist from around the globe and again I've never heard anyone say anything about intelligent design. As a matter of fact Shinto theology never comes up either - go figure? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Boat Michael, ANS: I was reminded of another site I was on and the overall discussions went something like the above. It is fun to take some of these obsurdaties and look at them scientifically. We determined the actual volume of the Arc and then attempted to put two of each on board. We ended up with a huge fleet of Queen Mary sized vessels and that didn't take into account the unbelievable food and sanitary requirements of caring for the cargo. The Arc could have housed a few cows, pigs and other domesticated animals but from the wild and two of all living creatures, not a chance. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the space phenomena MacM I once read another interesting bit of biblical trivia concerned with the number of animal fossils found. As far as I understood by cramming all of the known species from billions of years into approximately 10000 years yields a result of animals piled meters deep! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Its sort of funny stuff really – that is until a fundamentalist ends up in the control of the Union … … .. wait a minute .. .. . oh shit … !
Are there any systems in biology that could only function after several components had been evolved? That would present trouble for Darwinists. Also, who is to say there was nothing before the big bang - what if there was a big crunch? If all the mass and energy was contained in a singularity at the moment before the BB, then by determinism the universive would surely unravel in the same way each time? This would allow for time to be circular, although I would not like to be quoted on that!
Michael wrote Michael wrote Thank you for your response, Michael, but are you suggesting the following quote is not from a "credible" scientist? The following website is a report from Leslie Orgel regarding experiments in search for the origin of life by random chance through an RNA World. Are you also suggesting these experiments cited at this website are not from "credible" scientists? http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
A political purpose The term "Intelligent Design" has a meaning and history beyond the obvious. A lawyer named Jay Sekulow works for Christians, trying to expand their right to preach in public schools. Sekulow has been consistently shut down by the Supreme Court, but Scalia is a Catholic and sympathetic, and there are other members who aren't totally pissed off at him. In a dissenting opinion on a case that kept Creationism out of public schools, one Justice said that the law under consideration was inspired by Christian ministers, but if there was a neutral scientific theory that was not overtly religious, it would have a better chance of being presented in public schools as an alternative to religion. Sekulow and a few others went back, had a think session and invented a "non-religious" theory called "Intelligent Design." In short, they took every reference to Jesus and the Creator out of their Creationist literature and put it out again under the title "ID." In short, ID is a con game. There are no legitimate scientists who support ID, but you wouldn't know that by reading their propoganda. It SOUNDS like ID is a legitimate theory, but it isn't. It's just an attempt to open a wedge (as Phil Johnson says) that will allow Christians to proclaim that gospels in American schools again.
"When people start using science to argue for their specific beliefs and delusions, to try to claim that they're supported by science, then scientists at least have to speak up and say, "You're welcome to your delusions, but don't say that they're supported by science." -Victor J. Stenger - Particle Physicist
Funding for the Intelligent Design movement comes through several Fundamentalist sources, such as the Institute for Creation Research. I'll try to give a link: www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-071.htm At the bottom, they lay out the scam better than I can: We are not trying to bring the Bible or Genesis into public schools. We are not trying to exclude evolution from public schools, unless creation is also excluded. We are asking public schools to be neutral between theories of the origin of the world, life, and man, and to give academic freedom of choice to students between these theories. We are asking public schools to present the scientific evidences for creation along with the scientific evidences for evolution. But... if they aren't trying to bring Christianity into the public schools, why is the ID movement being funded by Christian groups? If you aren't sure whether a quote is from a legitimate scientist or someone on their payroll (and they own their own publishing company - maybe three or four) here's a list: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-086.htm http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/Library/Library_Creation.htm
More smoke to blow away. There we go - I can sort of see something. Yes there it is - You’ve taken Wald totally out of context. Its stuff like this that creationists do ALL the time! They are the best liers on the planet! In the quote you refer to, SVRP, you seem to be leaving out this "Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Wald was setting up an argument based around the notion of impossible. Wald was not a creationist! Here is a very popular quote from Wald not taken out of context: "Time is the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years... Given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles." What is your point here? Do you even attempt to read about the people you are quoting? Leslie Orgel is an evolutionary biologist at Salk. His focus is on how life started from early chemical reactions not how it was created from a god. He has a theory about RNA. He also thinks that about 4 billion years ago the earliest pre-cells may have self-aggregated by sticking to mineral surfaces. Again I ask what is your point? Here is his website: Leslie Orgel ask him yourself.
